LMGs

Many ways to differentiate the varying LMGs asymmetrically for an interedting variety:
-Range efficiency
-Raw DPS in burst or sustained
-Cover modifiers
-Cost
-Tier requirements
-Internal Setup timers

But all of these are rather moot, unless the single model focus of LMGs is done away with first. Without Cruzzs generalised dmg suggestion, all the above diversification just provides a superficial paintjob ontop of a core problem.

I understand somewhat the concern of vCOh players referring to a similar implementation in that earlier game, but CoH2 has a different infantry small arms balance and associated mechanics. I dont foresee the same kind of "one volley wipe of depleted hp unit" thing happening in CoH2 as a result of Cruzzs suggestion.

What it would essentially result in, is that you cant just hang around waiting to assault an LMG position. You need to do it NOW. The force differential swings in such a way, that an immediate assault by a full hp unit suffers far less on the approach, as compared to now. This is good. The counterpoint is it means you cant just sit there out of optimum with a unit in cover that shouldnt be sitting there out of optimum in the first place. Its a null point. That unit is "doing it wrong". Why is it sitting in cover out of its optimum somehow magically expecting to have significant effect? Yes, it can perform a holding action, but in so far as hoping for an equivalent attrition rate while out of its optimum, well, thats just an irrational fantasy. This is already the status quo, except now, as opposed to Cruzzs suggestion, you will infact lose models FASTER NOW, even out of optimum, and in cover, than you would in Cruzzs suggestion. Cruzzs suggestion aids both approaches, by the simple fact that you will lose less models immediately, and hence lose weapons, and hence actual onfield efficiency, than you do at this point.

Its an enormous net buff for action against LMG units, but reciprocates it to the LMG units if they can maintain distance and position for long enough to decimate the opponents unit to the point where an assault becomes very dangerous due to a univerasally hp depleted ovrrall unit (but still, with all its weapons intact).

TLDR: Cruzzs suggestion means you can hang around, at any range, for longer, than now. But the longer you do it, the more advantage the LMG unit has. I think this is marvelously equitable for both sides in that engagement.

I see it as a mediator on the immediate model losses from engaging an LMG, in favor of a slowish general hp depletion, to the result that a unit can approach with its weapon bearing models still relevant, to the range at which their wrapons are relevant, if they do so in a timely fashion. Also, mid to long range optimised small arms can remain at that range longer, due to a generalised dmg from LMGs, without losing crucial models and the weapons they carry for reciprocative DPS.

I understand its difficult to mentally envision, but it boils down to this:
-Its better to have a generally hp depleted 4-6man unit, than it is to have a proportionately as hp rich amount of less models, but with less remaining weapons to fire back with.

Its a fundemantal difference that cannot be stressed enough.
Unless this difference is understood, there can be no progress on the discussion.
Currently LMGs pump enormous DPS into a single model, killing it, and removing the weapon, thereby crucially crippling the efficacy of the engaging unit, because they NO LONGER HAVE SUFFICIENT DPS in the form of weapon bearing models to cincentrate sufficient force on the LMG unit to make a worthwhile difference once they are at their optimum.

As it is now, ANY unit without an LMG, will invariably lose to an LMG unit, at any range, regardless of their optimum, and regardless of the LMGs optimum. Why? Because the LMG will shred model after model, in sequence, invariably leaving you with less reciprocative DPS in the form of weapon bearing units. For each model that you lose, you suffer a quadratic loss in dps efficiency, vs the LMG besring unit. This is one of the reasons DP is so shit in comparisin to Ost LMG, because the value is split between 2 DPs, leading to a split DPS, that enacts the total damage, over two models, and hence takes longer to kill it, and hence remove the reciprocating weapon bearing model.

Ir incally, DPs provide a precedent. Its 2 LMGs firing at different models, with half the DPS (not quite, but close) and hence doing a far more generalised damage, and not ripping individual units as fast. The result? DPs look shit awful conpared to Ost LMG. Why? Because they arent ripping one model to pieces at a time. The dmg is "generalised" over 2 models (mostly), leading to the weapon bearing models surviving long enough to return fire, and make Guards look bad in comparison, because they are still taking DPS from those models until they finally die (at roughly half the rate).

Dead models dont shoot!

Until LMG DPS is generalised over several models, it doesnt matter how much you change the range modifiers, or the cover modifiers (both of which are the best, imo, secondary differentiatiins between LMGs of different units).

Why? Because of the current single model DPS of LMGs, it necessarily must have enough DPS to brute force it through range and cover modifiers. If it doesnt, it would make the LMG useless. Whats the point of a single target LMG, if it cant operate at ranges and against cover? It becomes an obsolete weapon compared to the vanilla small arms.

See what I mean?

This issue is so crucial, that if someone wants a voice discussion on it to clarify it in real time, I am open to that. PM me, we will arrange a meeting and I will try to help understand in voice this perspective, and ofc listen to yours too.

@wongtp,i don't disagree that lmgs are grossly overperforming...but ur fix gives heavy nerfs to OKw and wehrmacht more than allies..u make obers useless.But make guards only 10 % dps but more survivability.
Grens are the last infantry unit ost has-it would be funny when they are no longer able to do anything lategame.Same for rifles..tweaks must be carefully made,as thats the standard unit..core of faction.Ur choices would only make soviets more powerful as they would be least affected and shocks even better...they are already strongest faction.

i disagree. note that the current over performance of lmg is because of gren blobs, rifle blobs as well as volks + ober blobs.

lmg34 on obers do 2x lmg42 dps. that is completely ridiculous, combined with their received accuracy, they are currently the strongest infantry unit out there who are only efficiently countered by tanks. what i did was make obers less like a space marine, more like a ww2 soldier. obers are going to come out roughly 120% the dps of an upgraded gren squad with fotm, bundled nades and more durability for only 400mp. how is that useless?

grens currently do a lot, they cut down infantry, they slow down tanks and can rifle nade. when dps of lmg are nerfed across the board, the durability of grens will naturally increase. when that happens, grens are going to be alot more useful than its current incantation of showing face and losing models instantly.

guards are already under performing and not to mention they are expensive to spam. 330mp + 75munitions. i dont see a need for a huge dps decrease when soviets are the ones lacking the most in long ranged firepower. not to mention these guys cannot fotm, means they are susceptible to nades and rifle nades.

I want to like Cruzz’s AoE solution but I just don’t see how it can possibly be balanced.

In a vacuum the model works well. A unit charging the LMG takes AoE damage, doesn’t lose models, possesses more DPS when it gets into its own optimal range, and therefore stands a better chance of beating the LMG squad than it does currently. Unfortunately this model starts to break down the more LMGs you have concentrated in one area firing on one squad. Where a single LMG squad might slowly deplete the health pool of an enemy squad four LMGs would do so four times faster. Even if it took 20 seconds for a single LMG to render an enemy unit combat ineffective a group of four LMGs would do it in 5. The squad being shot might not loose as many models but it would still loose enough health that it would have to retreat or face a fast squad wipe. The alpha strike potential is still there, LMGs still dominate long range combat in groups, and it is no harder to blob LMGs and a-move them to achieve this result. About the only issue addressed by this change is 1v1 engagements.

Who might build four LMG squads? Well it isn’t uncommon for Wher and US to do this atm and the effectiveness of this strat is one of the reasons we’re discussing LMGs in the first place. The effect massed LMGs have on combat is similar to massed snipers. One sniper isn’t a serious issue but once there are enough snipers on the battlefield to take out half a squad in one volley infantry is hard countered. The same could be said of all squads but snipers and LMGs squads are the only units than can do it from long range with little personal risk. Any change to LMGs needs to address this fact to meaningfully fix the issue.

So the question I can’t answer is how do you keep AoE LMGs useful in a 1v1 engagement and not as overpowered as current LMGs when massed?

Tbh I'm not sure what your counterpoint is.

Per your scenario, currently, 4 LMGs will rip each model to pieces individually. In the change, the 4 LMGs would spread the dmg.

You would have more time to engage/retreat with models intact, than now, even against 4 LMGs.

So even in the extreme situation of 4 LMGs, the situation is improved, compared to now.

Tbh I'm not sure what your counterpoint is.

Per your scenario, currently, 4 LMGs will rip each model to pieces individually. In the change, the 4 LMGs would spread the dmg.

You would have more time to engage/retreat with models intact, than now, even against 4 LMGs.

So even in the extreme situation of 4 LMGs, the situation is improved, compared to now.

My counterpoint is that in both scenarios the 4 LMGs effectively remove the squad from combat at long range. Fewer casualties may be sustained initially but the squad looses the same amount of health in the same amount of time if dps is consistent. This means that the problematic alpha strike of LMGs is still retained since the squad still has to retreat or risk being wiped out. Hence spreading the damage might reduce initial model loss and help in small engagements but it does nothing to address how easy and effective blobbing LMGs can be. Much like snipers, the more LMGs present the more effective LMGs become.

If dps remains the same would spreading it out between the models of a squad make any difference once critical mass was attained? If a player was to load 3-4 riflemen up with M1919s and a-move them forward the riflemen would still output the same dps at long range and still force off opposing units just as quickly.

That is why I question whether any solution that doesn't address either the long range damage output or ease of use of LMGs can truly fix the situation.

Well, thats sort of what LMG is supposed to do.
Its an AI forcemultiplier weapon.
Its meant to kill enemy infantry.
That is all it does. It has no other function.

You seem to want it nerfed completely out of usefulness.

As I explained above, changing the LMG dmg from 1 model focus to generalised dmg, as Cruzz has suggested, fixes the problems you stated in your previous post. There is no "alpha" left anymore in it. Even vs multiple LMGs all targets survive with more models infact, and hence are capable of returning fire for longer.

I still don't get what your point really is.

As to "ease of use", well LMGs still carry an internal setup timer. So not sure what you mean.
Positioning is everything with them, and you generally can't fire on the move.

I'm seeing your point but I'm not really finding it convincing so we're going to have to disagree here.

This is a balance thread for brainstorming anyway. No need for everyone to agree.

Relic already is looking into LMGs, so the question is not if it should get nerfed, but how it will get nerfed.

Relic already is looking into LMGs, so the question is not if it should get nerfed, but how it will get nerfed.

Well, not necessarily nerfed. Just changed.

Especially if Cruzz's suggestion gets implemented, which from my perspective and analysis, is net benefit for everyone and also opens up further differentiation of different LMGs in interesting ways.

I'm seeing your point but I'm not really finding it convincing so we're going to have to disagree here.

Cruzz changes basically aims at making the LMG users to suffer also from damage while in certain degree help other units which doesn´t rely on specialized weapons for their DPS.

I guess it´s a matter of point of view, from tweaking them and just nerfing rough dps from them.

http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/page/1#post_id186930

Cruzz knows what must be done.

I have another suggestion, lets make aiming of lmgs in some kind similar to PTRS, i mean longer aiming and small cone of fire, then if fast moving smg squad will go out of the cone, the lmg guy wil have to reposition and aim again, this will make game more micro intensive and will punish one click attacks on both sides.

The idea is that lmg is kind of long to mid range sniper irl, kills a man instantly, here it can be little less lethal, but still should kill a model really quickly, even in yellow cover as it's nothing for mg burst and even at close range if a model finds himself in a cone that is really tiny at close range.

not sure but cruzz want to make lmg a pseudo AOE weapon and you guys are supporting it? i'd love to see 2 lmg teams focus firing and then a squad gets insta wiped with all members dying at almost the same time.

not sure but cruzz want to make lmg a pseudo AOE weapon and you guys are supporting it? i'd love to see 2 lmg teams focus firing and then a squad gets insta wiped with all members dying at almost the same time.

Ehy would you think that?

Are you under the false impression that he means an LMG hits all models in a unit each, with the same DPS it currently hits one model at a time now?

Is that what you think?

I dont understand your perception on this. Explain?

Ehy would you think that?

Are you under the false impression that he means an LMG hits all models in a unit each, with the same DPS it currently hits one model at a time now?

Is that what you think?

I dont understand your perception on this. Explain?

he wants to make it so that lmg spreads its damage all over the entire squad instead in order to reduce instant model losses but do more health damage over the entire squad. while this helps to get smg squads into combat with low model losses thus full dps, it will be ridiculous with multiple lmgs.

squad health will drop so fast without model losses to the point where lmg fire gets fatal, all 6 models would drop in rapid succession instantly causing a squad wipe with enough lmg firing on it.

the problem with lmg is simple, its meant to be a scaling option for infantry squads thus the dps boost. however, the dps it provides is way too much at long range. right now, it basically makes regular troops into long range snipers capable of sniping models at range.

going back to vcoh, bars never made rifles into elite terminators, they merely boosted the dps and firepower at close and mid only a small dps boost at long range and it was well worth the 200mp and 60fuel.

I see what you mean, but I dont think that is how Cruzz meant it.

Currently LMGs rip a single model to pieces with a force multiplying effect.
This is the case no matter if there is 1 or 6 models in its target range.

As I understand Cruzzs suggestion, it would mean that the DPS is spread, equally, and divided in total, across the models within its range, in that specific unit that it is firing at.

Not, as you seem to conclude, that every model receives the full DPS.
This seems to be a common misconception.
Ofc it doesnt mean an LMG hits each model in its spread, with full force.
It actually means that each model gets hit with a dps, as divided by how many models are being hit, from the sum total.

So if there are 6 models in the range, each model receives 1/6 of the total.
If there are 2, each recrives 1/2, of the total.

The net result is that individual models dont get chewed to bits, but instead the damage is spread, especially when closer in. Meaning units receive less immediate model attrition, meaning they sustain models and their own reciprocative DPS from those crucial models, for longer. Meaning they are more effective vs an LMG placement, once they are at their optimum.

You touch on a very important point though.
Basically, a change like this, makes LMGs, of all varieties, a unique kind of weapon.

I think this is a good thing, for the following reasons:
-More LMGs have entered the game. Its become a "staple" kind of upgrade like never before.
-LMGs have been considered a kind of "small-arm" like any other, and filed under the same kind of stat profiles. This is imo no longer representative of the LMG class. But LMGs are NOT a kind of small arm. They are very different, in many ways, especially due to internal setup timers.
-What Cruzz is indirectly suggesting, is that LMGs become a specific kind of sub-class of infantry upgrade, with its own internal balance.

This is excellent, because it means, after Cruzzs change, that LMGs do general dmg, rather than single target (as other small arms do), means LMGs of all varieties, can subsequently be balanced separately to each other, according to the specific needs of each faction.

I think universally, DPs where considered rather shit. Problems with cost and range optimisation (ehich are serious and have been overlooked FOREVER) aside, DPs actually provide a perfect example of why Cruzzs suggestion is so to the point and ingenius.

Why?

The primary problem, until now, i the above, is ironically exactly that which demonstrates Cruzzs solution.

Bear with me for a second.

The problem with DPs is, primarily, that it is 2 (TWO) weapons focusing on 2 (TWO) different models.
Result? They look "shit", because their total DPS is spread to 2 models, for less "lethal effect", on either one, as compared to thr LMGs single target rippage.

See what I mean?

Thats the kind of generalised LMG effect we can expect from Cruzzs suggestion.
And whats even better, it therafter opens up the possibility of truly differentiating LMG faction types, according to needs and a whole slew of stats that simply cannot yet be accesed, because of the single target natue of LMGs.